NJ Gubenatorial Candidate Speaks Out Against Six Strikes: ISP Shouldn't Decide What You Can Download

from the a-political-rallying-point dept

Via Slashdot, we learn that a gubernatorial candidate from New Jersey has staked out a clear position against the new "six strikes" Copyright Alert System. Carl Bermanson, a regular in New Jersey politics who entered the race a few weeks ago, made a nice statement about why six strikes is so problematic. Basically: why is it the ISPs' business at all?

"The
internet has become an essential part of living in the 21st century, it uses public infrastructure and it
is time we treat it as a public utility. The electric company has no say over what you power with their
service, the ISPs have no right to decide what you can and can not download". He went on to say that
while he believes copyright infringement is unethical, it is not surprising that as the law evolves to
disrespect the public domain, that the public would grow to disrespect copyrights.

While some will just brush this off, it is significant in that, to date, most politicians have been playing down the whole six strikes thing as a "good example of voluntary agreements," without realizing just how angry it's making people, and how it's giving them less reason to respect copyright at all.

Sadly, I'm so disillusioned with how politicians work that I don't care at all what any of them say when its election time. Didn't Obama promise to close Guantanamo?
Just because he says it now, is no guarantee he'll follow through if he is actually in office.

Re:

That is an outright lie, a great many people respect copyright a hell of a lot less than Masnick does.
Copyright maximalists would do well to heed what moderates like Masnick say before they lose their cherished copyright goose completely.

Re:

If it's respect for copyright that you are wanting, why aren't you advocating changes to copyright to restore the public's respect for it?

Seriously, you can only whack a dog so many times with a rolled-up newspaper before it turns and bites you. Even our four-legged friends have a basic concept of respect that far exceeds what some of the copyright maximalists around here can muster.

Let's hope this gains momentum

It's good to see politicians finally beginning to realize blatantly obvious stuff like this. I've been saying for about 5 years now that Internet access needs to be regarded by law as a public utility. Let's see if we can't actually get some momentum behind the concept.

The candidate's statement is somewhat misleading. The ISP is not making any decision about what you download.

The ISP has agreed to be a conduit between an unproven accusation against an IP address -- errors in collecting the evidence about that IP address are declared to be impossible -- and a paying customer. Errors, which are inevitable, in matching that IP address to a paying customer, are declared to be impossible.

Re: Let's hope this gains momentum

That'd be great. Then the FCC could simply order them to block sites, disconnect repeat infringers, block unlicensed encrypted traffic, etc. Watch out what you wish for. Although the Republicans will never allow government control of the internet.

"The electric company has no say over what you power with their service,"

provided that you PAY proportionally for it! Therefore I propose metering Internet like electricity: per-megabyte charges from ISPs, and TEN TIMES that on the upload side. -- That'd fix you bandwidth-hogging, freeloading pirates!

Less seriously, the "Six Strikes", not yet fully in place making a practical difference is only making a few pirates angry; as usual, Mike mistakes his few fanboy-trolls for general sentiment.

Re:

A home internet connection is a requirement for my day job and I'm outraged that Comcast is implementing this policy without any notification to me whatsoever. Not to mention AT&T controls my data plan. How can they unilaterally change the conditions of my contract and force me to continue doing business with them if I don't want to pay to end my contract?

Re: "The electric company has no say over what you power with their service,"

Re:

Nobody respects it less than you, Mike.

Speaking only for myself, I can say with certainty that this is 100% completely false.

I have nothing but complete and utter contempt for copyright and the corporations who have sought (and succeeded) to expand it over the last several decades and the corrupt governments and politicians who willingly went along with it.

With each passing day that copyright maximalists pander to governments the world over to get new treaties (TPP, ACTA), new laws (SOPA, PIPA), abuse existing laws (DMCA) and try to go around the law (six strikes, guilty until proven innocent, no due process), I respect them even less.

These copyright organizations are parasites. And we'd all be better off if they were gone.

Regardless of if this particular politician has much to gain, rallying against six strikes will become a useful tool for politicians running before the ISPs buy them. Any politician looking to gain the youth vote can rally against this, since any argument that "this is a threat to the internet, I will work to fix it" does very well with the youth vote. The youth vote today considers the internet to be a very high priority and distrusts anyone having any apparent power over controlling it and I doubt that political strategists have overlooked this.

"it is not surprising that as the law evolves to disrespect the public domain, that the public would grow to disrespect copyrights."

This is THE crucial point and I am glad that a politician has had the courage to stand up and say it. If the entertainment industries etc have no respect for the law or our rights why should we have any respect for the law or their rights?

Re: "The electric company has no say over what you power with their service,"

Re: Re: "The electric company has no say over what you power with their service,"

Honestly, between how six strikes will influence the national conversation and make the ISPs/media companies look bad (and the sure to follow embarrassing mistakes in identification), the fact that it is trivial to get around the strikes, and the fact that even if you do get strikes the migration measures are quite toothless, this works out more to be a gift for pirates going forward.

Re: Re: Re:

I'm not going to speak to his motives, but given the default practice of troll on this site to throw out random "facts" I think the call for citation is not unrealistic. The thinking being that if you make a claim you should back it up with a citation, not expect the reader to track it down for you.

Re: Re:

Agreed!

The best line in the article was the end of the quote: " it is not surprising that as the law evolves to disrespect the public domain, that the public would grow to disrespect copyrights" Once the maximalists get past this "all your cultures are belong to us" mentality, and some real discussion opens up about bringing some balance back to copyrights, then maybe, just maybe, these cries to respect copyright won't fall upon deaf ears. Until then, the bilateral contract between rightsholders and rightsgrantors has been rendered null and void due to repeated breach of unilateral changes to a 2 party deal.

Re: Re: "The electric company has no say over what you power with their service,"

Bandwidth hogging you say ootb? Dang you really have drunk the koolaid haven't you? You're just flappin' your gums cause you have no idea of what a real factual stance is.

Everyone buys a package of some sort for internet connection. Unless you can hack the account in some way, you can't exceed your package plan. It's another red herring the ISPs use to cover their ass for not investing in expansion of the net. They over sell their resources and when people complain they aren't getting what they bought... it's bandwidth hogging.

Sure thing. Another addition showing you can't think and string two sentences together without someone else thinking for you.

Bandwidth hogging you say ootb? Dang you really have drunk the koolaid haven't you? You're just flappin' your gums cause you have no idea of what a real factual stance is.

Everyone buys a package of some sort for internet connection. Unless you can hack the account in some way, you can't exceed your package plan. It's another red herring the ISPs use to cover their ass for not investing in expansion of the net. They over sell their resources and when people complain they aren't getting what they bought... it's bandwidth hogging.

Sure thing. Another addition showing you can't think and string two sentences together without someone else thinking for you.

Re:

"Sure thing. Another addition showing you can't think and string two sentences together without someone else thinking for you."

Well, sure its hard for him to think clearly. You would have difficulty thinking clearly too if you had the hand of a huge organization like the *IAA's jammed up your ass 24/7 to sock-puppet you into saying what they want.

Re: "The electric company has no say over what you power with their service,"

"provided that you PAY proportionally for it! Therefore I propose metering Internet like electricity: per-megabyte charges from ISPs, and TEN TIMES that on the upload side. -- That'd fix you bandwidth-hogging, freeloading pirates!"

Uh we already pay proportionally for it. Data caps. Throttling. Etc.

As for bandwidth-hogging, it's not just pirates downloading/uploading lots.

You're aware that Netflix and Pandora and Spotify and all that are LEGAL streaming services that use up quite a bit of bandwidth, right?

Ditto video games, which are now being updated through torrent protocols and clients (so as to lessen bandwidth costs on the developers).

I'd go on and on but it'd be pointless to do so with you, seeing as reality and the facts are both things you're pathologically allergic to.

"Less seriously, the "Six Strikes", not yet fully in place making a practical difference is only making a few pirates angry; as usual, Mike mistakes his few fanboy-trolls for general sentiment."

Re:

Carl Bergmanson
Carl A. Bergmanson is a conservative Democrat and was the mayor of Glen Ridge, New Jersey, a borough 10 miles west of New York City, from 2004 - 2007. Bergmanson is a vocal critic of the Democratic Party establishment in New Jersey. Wikipedia

The only problem with these guys is that after they get into office they too often become kowtowing party toadies.

Private enforcement of copyrights

"Carl Bermanson, a regular in New Jersey politics who entered the race a few weeks ago, made a nice statement about why six strikes is so problematic. Basically: why is it the ISPs' business at all?"

More importantly, how did we get from ISPs acting like common carriers to ISPs becoming copyright enforcers? We know about the government's involvement (under Victoria Espinel) in getting the ball rolling, but what exactly motivated ISPs to participate at all? Part of the story is missing, and I'd like to know what it is.

Re: "The electric company has no say over what you power with their service,"

"provided that you PAY proportionally for it! Therefore I propose metering Internet like electricity: per-megabyte charges from ISPs, and TEN TIMES that on the upload side."

Proportionally is exactly how Internet is typically sold you idjit. 56Kbps is a rarely chosen but still existing connection where the customer purchases 56 x 1000 bits (a 0 or 1) of information every second downloaded typically the contracts are for a month, use it or lose it, no discounts or refunds. A more commonly chosen contract is for 10Mbps. 10Mbps is 10 x 1,000,000 bits (a 0 or 1) every second with typical contracts billed monthly, use it or lose it, no discounts or refunds. Purchasing a 56Kbps connection or purchashing a 10 Mbps connection or buying more or buying less, is proportionly.

As far as the upload side it already does cost significantly more for large amounts of upload bandwidth with most ISPs.

Re: Re: "The electric company has no say over what you power with their service,"

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That is the corruption speaking.

Copyright was supposed to be for the benefit of the public first and for limited times.

But, through the corrupting influence of lobbyist money, governments and politicians have altered copyright to the exact opposite of what was intended in our constitution, for the benefit of corporate monopoly special interests at the expense of the public.

Copyright maximalists really don't want the public to wake up about what is truly happening. That's why they try and label their fight as a fight against "freeloaders" and "pirates." Copyright infringement is nothing, it's been going on for decades and will continue on for decades more. What they're really attempting to achieve is the ability to retain control and power. They feel they need that control and power in order to prop up corporate profits and shareholder returns. That's why they want to extend copyrights into perpetuity and invent more draconian methods of enforcement.

This isn't artists doing this. This is corporations doing it. They have entirely too much power and it is high time they were reigned in. But, they have the government in their hip pocket so its not going to happen often.

The public needs to wake up and put tons of pressure on their elected officials to stop pandering to the copyright lobby. This happened with SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. It needs to continue to happen.

Re: Private enforcement of copyrights

I believe it was due to Biden basically pulling a classic mafia move on them. 'That's a nice internet business you got there, be a shame if any regulations were to happen to it. Tell you what, you go along with what my bosses tell you, and maybe I won't have to send my friends to 'deal' with you.'

Overly dramatic, but I believe that's basically the gist of what happened.

As consumers we are blind

How is it a consumes reponsibility to know that any particular site has a right to publish the content it publishes. A good example is The Huffington Post who re-publishes all kinds of news content. Strike One.
YouTube, you click on a video that happens to have a song. It later gets taken dwon but not until Stike Two. How about Hulu. Well known enough but do we get to read the contract between the content creators and the site to see if they have a right to air it. Strike Three. Jonathan Coltan had a song reproduced by Glee and apparently every episode Glee steals content and deal with copyright issues later. Well you downloaded the song from Itunes, strike 4 then you bought the video on Amazon ...strike five. Oh that was just one week and you were done in 30 minutes of web browsing. Is this going to happen (yes). Because if you can imagine any screw ball combination of things going wrong then it probably will.

Speaking only for myself, I can say with certainty that this is 100% completely false.

I have nothing but complete and utter contempt for copyright and the corporations who have sought (and succeeded) to expand it over the last several decades and the corrupt governments and politicians who willingly went along with it.

Hear, hear! As far as I'm concerned, intellectual property has effectively turned what was once billed as the information superhighway and a limitless library into a monster. If I had any say, I would round up the MAFIAA and have them each rot in a small cell.

Re:

My exact thoughts as I finished reading. However I got pleasantly contradicted with a few pirate parties and some politicians I got to know and see their work closely. There's light. A tiny little bit of light. But it's there amidst all the rotten crap in politics.

considering this was an enforced agreement between the ISPs and the entertainment industries and happened without any input from the public or any of their representative bodies, how can it for one second be regarded as 'voluntary'? all this has done id further show the contempt that the entertainment industries and now the various ISPs have for their customers. it also shows, yet again, how little the entertainment industries are prepared to do themselves, at their own expense, to correct the biggest fuck up they have ever made by not listening to or catering for the people. the cost of this 'voluntary agreement, as usual, is being paid for by anyone and everyone except those very industries that have forced others to comply with their wishes.
'voluntary agreement', my fucking arse!! these politicians want a voluntary agreement implemented on to them whereby they cant receive any more campaign funds. let's see how they like that fucker!!

Re: Re: Re:

Don't leave out the fact that most of the current copyright laws were the result of industry lobbying in Washington. Hard to respect laws that you know were A) bought and paid for by corporate interests, and B) are mostly designed to regulate/restrict the public.

Re: Re:

How can they unilaterally change the conditions of my contract and force me to continue doing business with them if I don't want to pay to end my contract?

While they can unilaterally change the conditions of the contract (because they put a clause in the original contract that you agreed to that lets them), you may not be stuck doing business with them. If they have made a material (significant) change of the contract, you most likely will be able to get out of it without fees if you push back.

Re: Re: "The electric company has no say over what you power with their service,"

Correct me if I am wrong, and I may be, but I already do pay for my bandwidth. Firstly, I am on what is supposed to be an UN-limited plan. It consists of 40MB/s-1MB/s. Whether or not I am a pirate is a moot point. I am paying 40-1 for every bit (no pun intended) of traffic coming or going to the house.

Secondly, this article is about six strikes, and the fact it is a bad idea. You all complain because copyright wants too much control, and we can't have that. You also complain over too much regulation, or govt. intervention, if you will.

The bottom line is that this is about money. You all will also scream corruption, greed, blah blah blah while you are too busy forgetting it's the capitalist way. You don't get to choose, it's not a free country, and the system is broke, and has been for way too long.

NOW kudos to the guy who openly and publicly has likely already killed his political future by standing up and saying six strikes is bad.

Re:

Anyone who remotely approves of copy'right' law, or at least our current iteration of it, or the expansion of these laws (or enforcement thereof), is either completely ignorant about these laws or they have no regard for morality. I hate these laws, I hate them with a passion. and, in all likelihood, I hate IP laws more than Mike. and I see nothing morally wrong with infringement, though generally I try to avoid infringing and breaking the law and I don't encourage anyone to infringe. and what are you going to do about it? I want these laws abolished. What are you going to do about it? Call me a 'freetard'. Act like a little crybaby? Do you think this is going to change anyone's mind or do you think it's only going to convince people that you're too short sighted to even discuss the issue beyond calling those who disagree with you names? Your immature behavior is a huge disfavor to your position. You and your laws can get lost and if you think that makes me a 'freetard' I can care less. No one is forcing anyone to make content, if they don't want people 'infringing' they can stop. There are many others that will still create content. Whatever content or innovation that is allegedly lost due to IP abolition is a risk I'm more than very willing to take. Abolish IP. Completely. I don't want it at all. So what's your response now? That this blog is full of freetards? Get lost loser.